Republicans urge longer sentences for child molesters (Democrats fighting it)

Waterbury Republican-American ^ | January 25, 2007 | Paul Hughes

[YellowRoseofTx]

Sure-so an 18 year old who has a 15 year old girlfriend. lock him up and throw away the key.

Not if they don't have sex

[MaestroLC]

GOP needs to take a page from the Dem strategy book and say that Dems are for child molesters by going against this law.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Mandatory minimum sentences are idiotic and Stalinist, no matter how "noble" the cause. This is why we have judges - if we don't like the way they rule in certain cases, it is our obligation to replace them.

[stm]

A dhimmicrat's best friend:

[NorthFlaRebel]

Another Republican bill proposes a minimum 25-year sentence for using the Internet to try to entice children 12 and under into having sex. It would impose a 10-year sentence if victims are between the ages of 13 and 15. In both cases, a second offense would carry a life sentence.

While on its face this sounds fine, I wonder if the bill diferentiates between a child who was "enticed into sex", whatever that means, or a child who was a willing participant? The "under 12" part is fine, but the waters start getting muddy when we are talking about 14 and 15-year olds who do in deed use the net to seek out sexual encounters. Another problem with mandatory minimums in "sex crimes" is that there are many acts no reasonable person would consider a "sex crime" that are labeled as such under the lasw of various States(unlawfull restraint of a minor is a great example).

And here is a question nobody is really asking: Why were the laws originally written with "low" mandatory minimums? Was it because the authors of the laws did not see such crimes as bad enough to carry 25-year mandatory sentences under all circumstances? Was it because they didn't want a judges hands tied in cases that certainly do not add up to being a sex crime? What was the reasoning? They had something in mind when they decided on 10 years instead of 25 years. What was it?

[Eagle Eye]

Murder isn't even a federal crime, nor should it be.

[Graybeard58]

Murder isn't even a federal crime, nor should it be.

Depends on where the murder took place. It can be a federal crime.

[Eagle Eye]

Only against certain people. It really isn't the murder it is who gets murdered that makes it a federal offense. At least as far as I know.

Point it, I oppose federalizing crimes like this and in general oppose mandatory sentencing laws. Those laws are a bandaid on a problem and a poor solution for those problems.

[Graybeard58]

In the United States, the principle of dual sovereignty applies to homicide, as to other crimes. If murder is committed within the borders of a state, that state has jurisdiction. If the victim is a federal official, an ambassador, consul or other foreign official under the protection of the United States, or if the crime took place on federal property or involved crossing state borders, or in a manner that substantially affects interstate commerce or national security, then the Federal Government also has jurisdiction. If a crime is not committed within any state, then Federal jurisdiction is exclusive: examples include the District of Columbia, naval or U.S.-flagged merchant vessels in international waters, or a U.S. military base. In cases where a murder involves both state and federal jurisdiction, the offender can be tried and punished separately for each crime without raising issues of double jeopardy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

I didn't know about that last part, that someone could be tried by both federal and state for the same crime.

[Brilliant]

Murder isn't, and shouldn't be. But since there is such disparate treatment of child molesters by state, I think it would be desirable to make the libs wish they'd never brought up the issue of federal preemption of state laws. Federalize it, and make them explain why Vermont should be permitted to give child molesters suspended sentences.

[Eagle Eye]

Yep, forgot about federal property, ie military bases. LOL...even traffic tickets on base can become a "federal case"!

[massgopguy]

There was a case in my city where two guys raped a 14 year old girl because one wanted to see his boyfriend have sex with a girl one last time before he got a sex change. One was already a registered sex offender so he could not make bail. The pre-op got out on $2,000 bond. That's $200 he had to come up with. The judge in the case had previously been Fr. Geoghan's lawyer.

[Arrowhead1952]

Looks like the demonRAT party is following the lead of their hero - Justice Ruth Gizzy.

IIRC, she wanted the age of consent to be lowered to 12.

[Graybeard58]

Now I'm wondering about Indian Reservations. State, Federal or simply local crime?

[antisocial]

There are a lot of prosecutors against it because they say it is much harder to get convictions when the jury is bound by manditory sentences. The jury sometimes thinks that the perp is guilty but deserves a shorter sentence, so they vote not guilty.

[nutmeg]

Most demonRATs are despicable, aren't they? Thanks for the ping.

[nutmeg]

Connecticut ping!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.

[EagleUSA]

The jury sometimes thinks that the perp is guilty but deserves a shorter sentence, so they vote not guilty.
----
Big problem with our system -- the jury is not the law. The written law should provide for the sentence. The jury should only focus on the issue of 'guilty or not guilty'.

It is a big problem.

[JZelle]

Robert Redford must be really pissed now!!

[sgtbono2002]

***You are being kind. I'd castrate them at the neck.***

I am not opposed to that.